I've been looking at updating my 40D after many years of use, and quite frankly determining what to upgrade to has turned out to be a much harder decision than the first one I made when choosing between a 400D and a 40D in late 2007.

In recent years I have become increasingly frustrated by my 40D's restricting ISO band (100-1600 +3200) when trying to shoot in dimmer environments (even with primes). And such is the advancement of technology I have noticed that friends of mine who have bought entry level cameras (who aren't into photography that much), tend to get better shots in Auto mode in similar situations (if not exactly same place) than my 40D, even when I'm trying.

To cut to the chase, in light of recent mirror-less releases, the on sensor split pixel focusing tech in the 70D, and the general advancement of the 'light gathering' abilities of APS-C (since I bought my 40D), is it worth stepping up to Full Frame now, given the limitations I'm describing? The 6D seems to be a worthy contender for my pace of photography, despite not aspiring in areas that greatly appeal to this once 7D fancier!

I have got a 7D and a 6D. The 7D has much better weathersealing and if I go out to chase birds or wildlife and need the reach I take it. I also prefer it for macro shots. With a bit of careful post processing its good up to iso3200, which is at a guess, about the same as the 40D at iso 800.

The 6D surprised me, its focus point ( I only use the centre one 95% of the time ) is very very good and its a confident camera, its virtually noise free and can go up to iso 25600 no probs.Compared to the 7D the 6D can see in the dark.

I think a 6D would compliment the 40D nicely. I bought the 24-70 2.8 Tamron as a general lens for the 6D but it works well on the 7D for getting that extra reach. Just as the 70-300L works well on the 6D for closer shots than it does on the 7D. Basically I think the crop sensor and a full frame sensor compliments any lens collection nicely.

I realised only after a short time that my 40D's potential at capturing motion and wildlife at a distance was only being excised about 5% of the time I was using the camera. Overtime I have come to appreciate landscape, travel and candid photos, and have strived to ape the greats of the genres.

I thought hard (possibly too hard for what's it's worth!) about the 5DMK3 as a general purpose camera to fully replace my 40D. However if I put that 5% back in the frame, it's £800 more for that added potential over the 6D. £800 of mine that could be spent on other things. Obviously there are a few more features to the 5D over its superior fps and af, that makes it a default choice for the professional, but they don't warrant the extra outlay in practical use for me.

In a change to the original 'strategy' for upgrade I've got used to the idea of my 40D becoming the go to camera for that 5%. That and the fact the second hand residuals on a good used and totally complete 40D isn't really worth the hassle of selling in the UK.

On the subject of lenses (as you can see I've got an array of lenses to choose from already(some will have to go unfortunately (headache!))), the Tamron 24-70mm is spoken very highly of, but in real terms how does it compare to a 24-105mm? Currently my main lens is the 17-55mm (which is a superb compromise over my primes), but as a one camera, one lens option for a day out or long weekend, the telephoto end is limiting. So is that extra 35mm of focal length of huge detriment to the image over a f2.8 (17-55mm included)?

To give you some background, I recently purchased a 5D3; primarily for low light situations.I was in a similar position of having a 400D, and being frustrated by my shots in low light. I took my flash with me everywhere I went. Now I hardly ever use it with my 5D3.

One major difference that I see between the situation I was in and your situation when looking at acquiring a full frame camera is what lens(es) would need to be replaced.I spent several years acquiring full frame lenses to use with a future full frame body. So when I acquired a 5D3, I did not need any new lenses.

From what I see, you will also be looking at replacing the following: 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM

The Sigma is a great performer, even more when you factor the cost for it.The two most common full frame options are the 17-40mm f/4L (£650)and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. (£1,200)

The 17-55mm is a wonderful lens on crop, and you have already identified that you would need to replace it if you were to go to full frame. For the moment, just assume you went with the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. That will be another £800.

So in addition to the cost of the camera, you are looking at roughly £1450 - £2,000 in lenses as well.

If you are in a little bit of shock due to the associated costs, I have not even covered any accessories such as the grip or extra batteries, then might I recommend you take a look at some of the other new cameras that Canon has released such as the 70D? (£960)

You can always start acquiring more lenses with the money you saved now, and then get a full frame later on.

BleuDragon, What you've brought up is the problem that will dog photography enthusiasts for an eternity; to buy for the here and now or buy lenses for compatibility on Full Frame in the future.

To be honest once I learned about 'L' series glass I was quite attracted to the concept of lenses built like tanks and resolving power that was second to non. However when working out lens combinations (17-40mm paired with a 55-200mm, or a 10-22mm with a 24-105mm) I realised that I needed two lenses to cover the traditional 28-80+mm range with two lenses on a cropped body, in short a lens juggling compromise when on walkabout. So really there was only one choice at the time that had the allure of an 'L' but wasn't in this case; the 17-55mm. It turned out to be a very good choice actually, and the limitations I had recently are more attributed to the camera itself than the lens. This is why I asked in my first posting, should I possibly stick with APS-C given the technological advancement in gathering light on this format since I bought my 40D?

The funds for acquiring new kit is a 'half' issue. I just don't want to be buying a camera that then becomes a stop gap and depreciates as a result (APS-C or FF). Its a very analytical way of looking at it, but if a new 6D arrives in 18 months (rectifying its issues and bringing in tech from the 70D as an example), then £500 could be 'lost' in transition through depreciation. Bit of a whine really, but that's life!

As for the 5Dmk3, it's great, just too pricey over the 6D for that dynamic shooting. Oh and the weight too, quite a brick compared to the 6D with 24-105mm fitted. It made my present 40D with grip + batteries and 17-55mm feel like a light-weight! Nice grip though.

The 10-20mm + 24-105mm combo was great for crop... but I ended up also picking up the 16-35mm so I would not have to change as often. (In theory)So I understand what you are going through, and hopefully the earlier post helped a bit in your decision.

What I will NOT do, however, is to just tell you what to do. This is ultimately your decision. You know what you want to do and how much money you can spend on it. So my entire goal is to try to give you enough data to reach your decision without giving you too much data. (I generally find the later far harder than the former.)

From what I have read so far, I am not reading anything that really indicates full frame is an answer to your problems. Yes the low light is better, but is that it? Do you want to generally go wider than crop? Would you want more of an out of focus look when taking portraits?

What is your main type of photography? What is your second type of photography?Those that tend to love portraiture typically enjoy full frame more. While those that enjoy birding typically want a crop factor for the speed and additional "reach" a crop provides.

I would say Landscape/ Travel (which covers more just wide shots) is my main interest of photography. Portraiture is something I've been getting to grips with of late (not in the studio mind) so I would say that was my second type. I can only think of a 2-3 times where I have actively gone out to capture action and wildlife shots; in most cases it's opportunistic snaps of the wild.

For the most part I try to harness natural light in my photography (I've started carrying around a compact reflector for portraits and macros) even when there isn't much of it about. I've got a flash as you can see but it only serves as fill sometimes in very bright backlit situations.

I don`t think there is any need to rush with your lens decision, if you do get the 6D you will find the 70-200 f4 much more suitable for general photography and close up work. Then use the 28-135 on the 6D and see if that is what you want, by then you should have a fair idea of what is more important f 2.8 or f4 aperture or zoom range.

I find the 17-40 f4 great for Landscape stuff and don`t wish for 2.8 aperture then, but do like the 24-70 2.8 for chasing the kids around and indoors. The 24-70 on the 7D is something I use more than I expected. Its like the 17-55 with more range. But then I get similar results on the 6D with the 70-300 as its f4 up to 135mm.

The best part of a lens is the center. One of the great things of using a full frame lens and a crop body is that you use the best part of the lens.

For landscapes, the 10-20mm on a crop is going to give similar results as a more expensive lens on a bigger body. When I shot landscapes, I was typically at f/8 anyways.For a general purpose camera, the crop bodies are better than the full frame cameras. They are not as specialized.

If you want to treat yourself to a nice upgraded body, I would recommend either the 70D or the 7DII (when released) over a full frame at this point. You have a nice 17-55mm lens that you could not use on a full frame.

Full Frame is not the end all and be all of photography. While it has its strengths, there are some weaknesses associated with it as well. Full Frame is generally slower fps as there is a bigger sensor to process, as stated previously it demands more from the glass as it does not just use the best part, and some people do not enjoy a bigger/heavier camera. That said there are a lot of good things about full frame and I am enjoying mine a lot. If you go full frame, my wish for you would be that you enjoy it and have no regrets about doing it.

Have you considered renting a full frame camera and seeing if it is for you?

I don`t necessarily agree with BleuDragon only in that I think the 6D is more forgiving than the 7D. With it, I really have to work hard at indoor and low light stuff. The 6D is far more confident in that situation and its smaller and lighter to boot. I would recommend buying one ahead of a crop sensor, the step up from the 40D to the latest crop sensor is not that great. maybe in another couple of generations.

With the 40- 2.8 pancake lens its easily pocket able. Sure in good light, there is little to pick between the two, but in lower light and the dof a full frame sensor generates on primes in particular its worth it.

I don't necessarily agree with myself at times either. I do not want to come across as full frame is definitely not for you, but rather I am not reading anything that equates to needing full frame over a crop frame to get the results you want. Which is why I recommend renting a full frame camera to try it out.

Friendly warning: Handling a full frame camera can become addictive. Just taking a few shots with one 5 years ago is what started me on the path to getting my 5DIII.

Can I say guys thanks so much for the input to my posting; I've found it very beneficial talking about going Full Frame.

To be honest I'm not a total novice when it comes to the 35mm standard, particularly when playing with primes. A friend 4 years ago or so leant me his D700: fantastic time with that depth of field in that glorious viewfinder! I was in a different place then so even considering going FF was totally out of the question; not to mention my 40D only being about 18months old or so. In addition a relative dumped all this 'free' 35mm FujiColor on me this summer (I'm looking at a nice pyramid of boxes now!). I've been working slowly through it with my old EOS 300. Love the results with my primes. Downside is it is expensive to get it developed and transferred to disc (which is usually of poor resolution), so I've been scanning the ones I want and tweaking them in Lightroom (time consuming). I've found that carrying around a camera like that makes me feel at ease (not to mention light), because it tends to attract less attention than a big black camera with equally big lens and hood.

I spent last night, after a very difficult day at work reviewing Gordon's review and others from notable publications. They all more or less said the same positive things really about the 6D, and logically dismissed its short comings, in particular 'if you want high FPS, then this camera is not for you...the 6D was never designed with that activity in mind".

I can say that I feel confident now about moving on up. I'll look a decent price out; there are some good incentives on now. As for lenses I'm not going to rush that aspect 'of the new camera'! Body only. I'd like to try out that Tamron, oh and that new Sigma 24-105 when it hits shops too.

The two most important thing about this entire decision are: 1) You can afford it. 2) You are happy with your decision.

Other than that, all I ask is that you post some interesting parts of your journey on this forum. I enjoy reading other peoples thoughts or ideas or questions. As a side benefit, I usually get some inspiration to go out and take more photos because of it.

Two other random things: 1) How are you enjoying your 28mm f/1.8? 2) If you enjoy cheap (but wonderful) primes, you might want to look at the 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 or 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I really enjoy my 85mm on a full frame.

Sure I'll pass on my experiences going Full Frame when I get my hands on a new 6D.

Quote:

How are you enjoying 28mm f/1.8?

It's ok, just that really. Not as sharp as the 17-55mm at the respective focal length and apertures. If we're talking about primes the 50mm outclasses it in the corners wide open. As I said with film sharpness isn't an issue really because the FujiColor 200 is a little course anyway (the 'lomo' look), but on the 40D (acting as a standard) I'm really stepping down to achieve some kind of sharpness. I like the build and AF (more refined than the 50mm), but would I recommend it...yes and no, given that there is quite a large choice of alternatives now.

Quote:

If you enjoy cheap (but wonderful) primes, you might want to look at the 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2 or 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I really enjoy my 85mm on a full frame.

Yeh I was interested in the 100mm f2.0; heard a lot of good things about it as well as the 85mm f1.8. Thought the 100 would give me a little bit more compression in portraits and a longer reach in low light when the 70-200mm is too slow and a tad conspicuous.

Well - you have a nice standard lens for full frame cameras - the 28-135mm IS USM; you also have a Tele lens - the 70-200mm; then you have two primes you can use...I don't see why you shouldn't upgrade to the 6D. Then you can still think of an upgrade of the 28-135. The 24-70mm is nice, but a bit short on the longer end and the 24-105mm is a great lens with a very useful zoom range but it's just f4.

Another wide angle lens you could consider is the Sigma 12-24mm - that's a hell of a wide angle on a full frame body and still very wide on a crop camera, which is why I bought that. (I already had following full frame lenses on my 500D before upgrading to the 5D3: Sigma 12-24mm, Canon 24-105mm, Canon 100-400mm, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro IS, Canon 50mm 1.8 II; and for "small times" the 28-80mm USM (first version with metal mount and ring USM) and the 100-300mm USM).